Kudos to the WSJ for not backing down upon being threatened with a lawsuit.
I’d venture to guess that Maxwell had her request for political aid for her legal situation denied.
So she just mailed the WSJ this document from her jail cell?
Sounds a bit too perfect, really.
Yes, especially if they do not settle. .
Who do we think leaked this? Although I like to guess leaker identity, in this case I have no idea. I think it was someone who doesn’t like Donald Trump, but even that I am far from sure of.
This leak may hurt Trump, but it also may help him. If the birthday album was going to eventually be released by Bondi, it helps Trump in that he can then say it is nothing new as far as his part is concerned..
You keep using examples that make the exact opposite point you are claiming. No one is saying that its not possible to do anything in secret, of course spies are being recruited and informers turned right now and the public is none the wiser. But for any case where there is sufficient reason for people to tell the story, the story will get told sooner or later.
Case in point the Hezbollah (not Hamas) Pager Attack. That is an incredibly secret operation by the most secretive intelligence organization in the world. And within days we knew all the details, right down to which front company had produced the pagers…
If Trump leaves office in January 2029, he will be inclined to give Maxwell a last minute pardon. It does not make any sense to me that she would risk that.
Something did just occur to me. I’ve heard that Epstein may have been an asset of Israeli intelligence. Now the way these thing work would be if there were a Russian mole in the Israeli intelligence bureau, the Ruskies would know everything the Israelis did.
Yeah, Tucker Carlson, whose integrity rating is about zero.
From Google AI-
Allegations and speculation suggesting Jeffrey Epstein was an asset of Israeli intelligence have been widely discussed, particularly in recent days, fueled by comments from conservative commentator Tucker Carlson.
However, these claims are categorically denied by former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who stated that during his time as Prime Minister, Mossad reported directly to him, and he can say with “100% certainty” that Epstein never worked for Israel or Mossad.
Reminder, AI posts are not considered cites.
Though you might be able to follow the AI info to actual cites.
To my, and LSL’s, point, thank you for the admission you were wrong.
I mean, it’s hard to reconcile a belief that leaks are everywhere and impossible to contain with the necessity of also believing that Putin, the master of internet spycraft, allowed his airforce to be attacked.
Yes of course my bad. What better way to disprove the fact that its almost impossible to keep sufficiently major secrets secret in the long term, than to list a whole bunch of major secrets that are in fact no longer secret.
All the examples @Sage_Rat gave are examples of things that were the most sensitive highly protected secrets on the planet and are now completely in the public domain.
Bringing it back to the OP. There is basically zero chance of a secret as major as “a future president of the united states sexually abused children, and there is evidence of it in government possession but it was hidden because he was an FBI informer at the time” would stay completely secret.
There is a difference between ‘secrets’ and ‘history’. I’ll let you google it, though.
Yup and it’s history we are discussing here. AFAIK no one is claiming Trump is currently abusing children with the reanimated corpse of Jeffery Epstein, but getting away with it because he is an active FBI informant.
Ex-PM Bennett calls claims Jeffrey Epstein worked for Mossad ‘totally false’
Former premier responds to ‘personalities such as Tucker Carlson pretending they know things they don’t,’ as conspiracy theories link Israel to disgraced financier… Former prime minister Naftali Bennett on Monday rejected accusations, including from US pundit Tucker Carlson, that disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein was an intelligence asset of the Israeli government…As a former Israeli Prime Minister, with the Mossad having reported directly to me, I say to you with 100% certainty: The accusation that Jeffrey Epstein somehow worked for Israel or the Mossad running a blackmail ring is categorically and totally false,” Bennett wrote on X, marking a rare foray by senior Israeli politician into the murky world of conspiracy theories, many of them fueled by antisemitism.
First, it should be pointed out that no one made that accusation so if that’s what you were envisioning, rather than, “interview transcripts are being withheld” - i.e. what you were replying to - then I can’t really help you. You were arguing against a position that no one held.
At the level of behavior (and evidence of it) as you imagine - which, again, was just you and only you - I’d like to be able to grant that you’re probably correct. If it wasn’t for the Jimmy Saville case and the matter of the Catholic Church from 300AD to 2002AD, I’d wholly agree. It certainly seems like there should be some obvious bright line at which even the most devout believers in occupational confidentiality rules and even the most deplorable sycophants would go rogue and destroy their own boss. That’s not entirely born out by history. I mean what we can presume to be 1700 years of failure for the sexual abuse of children to still largely come out as a surprise from left field feels like a suitably long delay that even you should understand that knowing some amount of something now doesn’t say anything about the inevitability of the quantity of the release nor the schedule.
I’d like to agree with you. It would certainly make me feel better about humanity. And you’re probably correct. It’s not guaranteed, though, from what I’ve seen in my own life.
So, again, you’re probably correct if that was the precise scenario. But I’d put it to you that there’s a variety of scenarios, with varying levels of disquiet. And while greater disquiet means a higher incentive for a leak, maybe now just happens to be the time when there’s been a long enough of a time since the matter became important that the inevitable leak decides to come.
Okay, I’ve been able to get access to the article now. My Maxwell guess was, as rightly pointed out, far off the mark. I shoulda held back. Sorry about that.
But so…
I’m reminded of a moment in my childhood. Maybe I had made a complaint of inappropriateness about the painting of the naked lady over his bed or he just wanted to mess with my Grandma, but my Grandpa decided that today was the day to teach young Sage Rat how to draw a naked lady.
You start with a Y for the cleavage, add some C shapes to create the boobs, and so on. It wasn’t art, it was calligraphy. A precise set of curves and angles, laid down in a precise sequence to create a stylized female body. It was clear that the intent wasn’t to “create your own”, it was to master the procedure and the final product, like a stencil.
There are quite a number of reasons that I can envision that would make Trump want to keep most of the information under wraps, like…
- While he, himself, comes off well within the Epstein materials, there could be compromising evidence against Marmaduke Figglebottom, and Figglebottom knows things about Trump that he’d prefer to have not get out. Figgle needs to be protected.
- A careful review of the timeline - especially given that we know that Trump had easy access to rat to the FBI about people - shows that he knew things that should have been reported. And those things weren’t reported until much later, by others, with Trump only following suit when the jig was obviously already up. The bright line of when a person, any person, should go to the authorities was not met.
- Trump’s behavior was “questionable”. Maybe he could have reasonably been confused about a girl’s age. Maybe he made jokes about the girl seeming underage but, in that instance, she was not. He pushed a girl to abort the child.
- Trump wants to maintain the illusion that he barely knew the guy.
And so on. I could probably think of many other variants.
But one issue is that the more that specific details come out, the better a chance there is of a larger story being constructed.
Let’s imagine, for example, that Trump’s naked lady is like my Grandpa’s. It’s not something you draw once. It’s something that you draw whenever there’s the occasion.
If anyone, in all of history, ever received that same picture from Trump, they’re going to know that he did it. It’s going to be manifestly clear that it’s a true story. We could have dozens of folk come out and show us exactly the same picture, as described, all the same as one another from different, unrelated sources.
The police might not know that it was one of those things that Trump does - since they only have the one - but the wider collective might be able to put it together, now that they have some dots to connect.
In general, the more that information is released, the more that a full story of Donald’s life and choices can be assembled. The more that things that journalists held back as hearsay, might gain substantiation.
One girl that served Epstein might not know who that masked man was that she had sex with, the one time. When she’s able to read that other girl’s story, where the other girl describes the time that Donald put on a mask, maybe she realizes who the person was. Before, and when she talked to the police, she only knew her own story. She only told the police about certain things, and never mentioned the man in the mask since it didn’t seem to matter.
Now she knows.
Keeping everything secret keeps the scale of danger at what the police were able to find out. With all the details out there, you’ve got the power of a billion angry liberals with Google and forums working the case.
Trump Calls for Release of ‘Pertinent’ Epstein Documents Following WSJ Article
What motive would a judge have to violate grand jury secrecy? None. This takes the Watergate “modified limited hangout route” to a new level of limitation.
Even if the judge let’s the limited grand jury testimony go free, 1) that’s still not the 10s of thousands of documents, the client list that the DOJ prepared, and what Trump said he’d release, plus 2) it’s specifically the argument that the prosecution was making against Epstein (and/or, maybe Maxwell). Just by nature of what it is, you would expect it to be fairly tailored to only address the activities of a single person.
MAGAts burning MAGA hats in protest.